DOJ-OGR-00016935.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney argues that a specific conspiracy charge is narrowly focused on a violation of New York law, with Jane as the sole victim. The attorney distinguishes this from separate conduct in Florida involving a person named Carolyn and clarifies that while witnesses Kate and Annie provided testimony, they are not victims under this particular charge.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn |
Mentioned in relation to conduct in Florida, which is argued to be separate from the New York law violation.
|
|
| Jane | Alleged Victim |
Identified as the sole alleged victim of a conspiracy involving a violation of New York law. Her statement is cited a...
|
| Kate | Witness |
Her testimony can be considered by the jury as evidence of a conspiracy, but she is not considered a victim of the sp...
|
| Annie | Witness |
Her testimony can be considered by the jury as evidence of a conspiracy, but she is not considered a victim of the sp...
|
| your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker, indicating the presence of a judge presiding over the proceedings.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having instructed the jury.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
An attorney makes a legal argument to a judge, clarifying that a specific conspiracy charge is based solely on a violation of New York law related to a single victim, Jane, and distinguishing this from conduct in Florida involving Carolyn and the testimony of witnesses Kate and Annie.
Courtroom
Unnamed Speaker (Attorney)
your Honor (Judge)
Key Quotes (3)
"the only evidence we have that goes to -- that actually establishes a violation of New York law, which is the object of this conspiracy, and the object of the transportation conspiracy, is what Jane said."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Attorney)
(Arguing that Jane's statement is the sole evidence for the violation of New York law central to the conspiracy charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00016935.jpg
Quote #1
"for them to actually convict on this, they have to believe that somebody committed a violation of New York law, and that relates solely to Jane..."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Attorney)
(Explaining the legal standard for the jury to convict, emphasizing the charge's exclusive connection to Jane.)
DOJ-OGR-00016935.jpg
Quote #2
"they are not victims of this conspiracy, there was no violation of New York law that they testified to, and that is Jane alone."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Attorney)
(Distinguishing witnesses Annie and Kate from the victim, Jane, in the context of the specific New York-based conspiracy charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00016935.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,558 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 95 2747
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
sexual activity as charged in the indictment, which is a
reference to the violation of New York law, because that is the
theory we're proceeding under.
With respect to Carolyn, there was no limiting
instruction, but it's evident we were talking about Florida
conduct. There is no violation of New York law there. So the
only evidence we have that goes to -- that actually establishes
a violation of New York law, which is the object of this
conspiracy, and the object of the transportation conspiracy, is
what Jane said.
Now the Court did instruct the jury that they can
consider the testimony of Kate and of Annie for whatever
relevant purpose they see fit, and I suppose that could be
eVIDENCE of a conspiracy, correct, but for them to actually
convict on this, they have to believe that somebody committed a
violation of New York law, and that relates solely to Jane, and
so we don't think -- there are no multiple alleged victims of
this conspiracy other than Jane that's been established by the
evidence at trial. So we believe while they may be able to
consider the testimony of Annie and Kate as evidence of some
sort of relevant evidence that speaks to this conspiracy, that
is not -- they are not victims of this conspiracy, there was no
violation of New York law that they testified to, and that is
Jane alone. So this count relates solely to Jane, as does the
substantive count, your Honor.
reference to the violation of New York law, because that is the
theory we're proceeding under.
With respect to Carolyn, there was no limiting
instruction, but it's evident we were talking about Florida
conduct. There is no violation of New York law there. So the
only evidence we have that goes to -- that actually establishes
a violation of New York law, which is the object of this
conspiracy, and the object of the transportation conspiracy, is
what Jane said.
Now the Court did instruct the jury that they can
consider the testimony of Kate and of Annie for whatever
relevant purpose they see fit, and I suppose that could be
eVIDENCE of a conspiracy, correct, but for them to actually
convict on this, they have to believe that somebody committed a
violation of New York law, and that relates solely to Jane, and
so we don't think -- there are no multiple alleged victims of
this conspiracy other than Jane that's been established by the
evidence at trial. So we believe while they may be able to
consider the testimony of Annie and Kate as evidence of some
sort of relevant evidence that speaks to this conspiracy, that
is not -- they are not victims of this conspiracy, there was no
violation of New York law that they testified to, and that is
Jane alone. So this count relates solely to Jane, as does the
substantive count, your Honor.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016935
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document